I just moved to Iowa a few months ago and have a limited knowledge of the three major Democratic gubernatorial candidates. I've seen the ads, read a few analyses of their positions on issues, and watched one of the televised debates, and for the first time in a long time, I can honestly say I'm undecided which horse to bet on. Below the fold, I'll list what I perceive to be the strengths and liabilities of each of the three candidates, and welcome as much input as possible that could help me with my decision.
Chet Culver is the definite frontrunner. Two sets of polls released by Research 2000 yesterday showed Culver leading the primary field by a 38-25-20 margin, and leading Jim Nussle by an impressive 49-41 margin. His frontrunner status seems to be the product of his statewide name recognition (he's a two-term Secretary of State) and his "golden boy" image which practically oozes "head of state". I'm not sure where Culver's home turf is, but his strong numbers suggest to me that he's doing well in central Iowa. Boffo numbers in central Iowa are vital to statewide victory, but more than ever in this election where Jim Nussle can be expected to do better than the average GOP candidate in his home turf of eastern Iowa. If Culver has the capacity to win metropolitan Des Moines by double digits, that's a huge feather in his cap.
On the other hand, there's a consensus among my reasonably informed colleagues that Culver may not be ready for primetime. Indeed, I think his performance was the weakest in the debate I watched last weekend, and he got caught in an inconsistency when asked his position on civil unions. If Culver turns out to be all hat and no cattle after the primary, we can be sure Nussle will be right there to swoop in and peck away at his political carcass. Also, Mike Blouin's negative ad rose a huge red flag for me, dropping the bombshell that Culver was a paid lobbyist for IBP years back. As the offspring of a meatpacker who watched his town be destroyed by the IBP-fueled restructuring and union-busting within the meatpacking industry, this is a particular sore spot with me and makes me question where his priorities lie. I'd certainly vote for him over Nussle no matter what, but if I have a choice in a primary between a candidate who was a paid lobbyist for IBP and one who wasn't, I'm most likely gonna choose the one who wasn't every time.
Mike Blouin is Culver's leading challenger and has the backing of the establishment, including 80% of Iowa's Democratic legislators and 90% of the state's labor unions. I take that seriously, but also keep in mind how the "establishment candidate" has botched so many elections in Minnesota in the recent past. Blouin was a Congressman in the 1970's and worked within the Vilsack administration in economic development. He seems the most versed on economic issues and is smart enough to point out pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams raised by other candidates. Furthermore, his electoral base in Dubuque will help innoculate Nussle's advantage in that region, which scares the hell out of me because if the Democratic candidate isn't winning in Dubuque in a statewide election, it's hard to see how he pulls out a victory.
The asset of being from eastern Iowa could just as easily be a liability regarding the rest of the state, however. Blouin will have to win over voters in central Iowa who are unfamiliar with him, which Culver will be less likely to have to do. Furthermore, he's an anti-choice Democrat. Since he's given assurances that he has no intention of pursuing abortion restrictions, I can't see much of an electoral benefit coming from his pro-life stand. Pro-choice Democrats may be inclined to stay home on election night if Blouin is the candidate, while pro-life conservatives of all parties who would be more likely to embrace a pro-life Democrat would see him as a flip-flopper given that he expresses no interest in pursuing abortion restrictions.
Ed Fallon was my favorite candidate in the debate. I'm instinctively partial to anybody who invokes the name of my hero Paul Wellstone publicly, but Fallon also handled questions the most directly and with the wriest sense of humor. He seems like a very principled guy and I may just decide to go with the candidate I like best in this primary. When fellow Upper Midwesterners Wellstone and Russ Feingold stayed true to their principles, it repeatedly earned them the respect of voters, so Fallon was overperform his early poll numbers when his identification numbers rise. I definitely suspect that the more voters learn about Fallon, the more they'll like him.
Fallon's main liability appears to be soft name ID outside of Des Moines, and his insistence on limiting campaign funds would make him an easier target in the general election against Nussle, who will have no such commitment. Remember how Russ Feingold blew a 20-point lead in 1998 when his challenger saturated the ads with attack ads while Feingold was straitjacketed to federal campaign funds? Feingold pulled it out, barely, but Fallon would have a much more uphill battle as a non-incumbent against Nussle. Furthermore, Fallon's mild-mannered demeanor (at least mild-mannered from what I've seen) makes him a Dukakis-esque candidate for "scary liberal" demagoguery at the hands of Nussle of and the Republicans. If Fallon is effectively sold as a radical liberal, Iowa's more conservative Democrats will abandon him, particularly the ones in northeast Iowa who will need a reason not to vote for favorite son Nussle.
Again, I wish I knew more about these candidates and welcome any further information or advice fellow Kossacks can share that would help me with my decision. Who do you plan to vote for?